Evans' article was no paean to civil discourse either. Most of Evans' piece appeared to be her impressions of what motivated Cruz, Loesch, et al to do what they did. And those impressions were not fact-based, but rather, to my eyes, pulled out of thin air and thrown against the wall to see what stuck.

But Loesch's hysteria and hyperbole -- not to mention her own unique efforts at sand box name-calling (characterizing AT as a “crap bag”) on-air -- was as uncalled for as it was wildly inaccurate. In this case, both the pot and the kettle should take a break, pop open a cold one, and relax.

Inaccurate? No, the article did not accuse Senator Cruz and Rep. Gohmert of being "secretly Democrats." Nor did it accuse Loesch of being a Democrat. Nor did Evans accuse Loesch of "essentially" committing a crime. This is gross hyperbole, deliberately taking statements out of context and setting up straw men to knock down.

I have no animus to direct against Loesch, or Cruz, or Beck, or anyone else who was at the border. In fact, I agree with them. I am at a loss to understand why conservatives would criticize this effort. Isn't this what conservatism is all about? Volunteerism, private funds, Christian charity -- what's not to like if you're a conservative?

And I agree that Evans was completely out of bounds in most her criticisms. For example, what's with this?

Huh? This proves...what? The head of a charity meets with the most powerful Democrat in the House? That's her job. Even if she agrees with Pelosi about amnesty, is it Evans' contention that there is even a remote connection between the nun's visit and her visit with the conservatives? Does Evans think that amnesty is a communicable disease and Loesch et al are now infected?

Here's an argument short on facts and long on character assassination:

Funny how it does not seem to bother them that the rest of us are being forced to pay for transportation, medical care, legal assistance, and housing for the recent surge of illegal aliens coming in droves. Nor do they seem worried about the dangers undocumented illegals pose to the country. If it did, wouldn’t they be with rallying with the protesters, instead of, in St. Paul’s words, partnering “righteousness with lawlessness?”

What gypsy-like mind reading skills is Evans using to peer into the souls of those conservatives to discover that it "doesn't bother them" that the American taxpayer is burdened with caring for the illegals? Or that they don't seem worried "about the dangers" of illegal aliens? That's a crock, as the record of those she is accusing amply shows. And is everyone who didn't attend a protest over the weekend now to have their commitment to the issue of illegal immigration questioned?

It's this sort of thing that makes Evans' piece unbalanced rather than an effort to make the case that these conservatives should not have visited the border.

What about this malarkey?

Loesch’s comparison of helping lawbreakers at the borders with helping veterans is akin to Sue Smith of a Virginia group LUCHA Ministries, saying “immigrants add a lot to our community” and these protests are “a sad picture of who we really are.”

No, Loesch's statement about helping illegals being similar to helping veterans is nowhere near "akin" to anything said by Sue Smith. Loesch helping illegals and veterans is an act, which can't be compared to what someone said. The disconnect between the two is jarring. There is no connection whatsoever -- two different things unrelated to one another. Loesch is comparing helping illegal kids with helping veterans. Smith is criticizing protests. Even pretzel logic is inadequate to the task of connecting the two.

A final, baseless smear:

So if these high-profile conservatives think they will keep raking in the votes and money while playing both sides they are delusional. Heart-tugging photo-ops, slick marketing, savvy, sexy book covers and courting the Tea Party rank-and-file may have worked up until now but anyone who lends his name or face to this government-sponsored invasion of illegals could soon be on the outs with those of us standing on bridges.

How is what Loesch et al did at the border "playing both sides"? If anything, their excursion highlighted -- placed in stark relief -- the utter incompetence and disarray of the government's response to this crisis. They were warned almost a year ago the situation was getting out of control and they did nothing. And now it's up to private efforts like Beck's to take care of these kids?

I suppose if you want these kids chained to a dungeon wall somewhere and fed bread and water, that would satisfy some of these political Christians -- charity is OK as long as it's directed at people who agree with us. All others -- Democrats, liberals, illegal aliens, or criminals need not apply.

Yes, the government is in a bind of its own making, but why should children suffer for it? As to their lawbreaking, yes let's deal with that. But that is a separate issue from their immediate, human needs. They're here. Punishing them for how they got here by assisting in making their lives miserable is, to my mind, crazy. By all reports, the conditions in these shelters are abysmal -- at least until a Congressman or reporter wants to visit and then they are spruced up and sanitized.

It's not a question of big government, "compassionate conservatism." That term refers to government spending, not private charitable activities. And conservatives are compassionate. The right gives more to charity and volunteers their time for charitable work more than liberals.

Following the example of the life of Jesus Christ means ministering to those who need it most, regardless of their station in life. Jesus did not only preach to Jerusalem suburbanites. He courted the company of the poor, the criminals, the sick, and especially, the children. It remains a mystery to me how this simple, Christian impulse followed by some prominent conservatives has been twisted to prove some dastardly and underhanded actions by a few conservatives who, even if they were grandstanding, were giving needed assistance to people in distress. And, since last I looked, humans have not been blessed with the insight to glean motives from anyone's actions, any questioning of intent is useless blathering.

You can try to impugn the motives of the conservatives who showed up voluntarily at the border with food and toys bought with private funds. But if you're going to do it, you better have more proof than that offered by M. Catharine Evans.

Yesterday, American Thinker was involved in a Twitter firestorm when an article by M. Catharine Evans about a group of prominent conservatives who went to the border on a humanitarian mission to hand out food and toys to illegal alien children went viral.

Taking notable exception to the article was radio talk show host Dana Loesch who unleashed a flurry of hysterically exaggerated, ill-tempered tweets that were as baffling as they were inaccurate.

A few samples:

Your site seems to have accused me of making $ off of illegal immigration, @AmericanThinker please provide proof.

Evans' article was no paean to civil discourse either. Most of Evans' piece appeared to be her impressions of what motivated Cruz, Loesch, et al to do what they did. And those impressions were not fact-based, but rather, to my eyes, pulled out of thin air and thrown against the wall to see what stuck.

But Loesch's hysteria and hyperbole -- not to mention her own unique efforts at sand box name-calling (characterizing AT as a “crap bag”) on-air -- was as uncalled for as it was wildly inaccurate. In this case, both the pot and the kettle should take a break, pop open a cold one, and relax.

Inaccurate? No, the article did not accuse Senator Cruz and Rep. Gohmert of being "secretly Democrats." Nor did it accuse Loesch of being a Democrat. Nor did Evans accuse Loesch of "essentially" committing a crime. This is gross hyperbole, deliberately taking statements out of context and setting up straw men to knock down.

I have no animus to direct against Loesch, or Cruz, or Beck, or anyone else who was at the border. In fact, I agree with them. I am at a loss to understand why conservatives would criticize this effort. Isn't this what conservatism is all about? Volunteerism, private funds, Christian charity -- what's not to like if you're a conservative?

And I agree that Evans was completely out of bounds in most her criticisms. For example, what's with this?

Huh? This proves...what? The head of a charity meets with the most powerful Democrat in the House? That's her job. Even if she agrees with Pelosi about amnesty, is it Evans' contention that there is even a remote connection between the nun's visit and her visit with the conservatives? Does Evans think that amnesty is a communicable disease and Loesch et al are now infected?

Here's an argument short on facts and long on character assassination:

Funny how it does not seem to bother them that the rest of us are being forced to pay for transportation, medical care, legal assistance, and housing for the recent surge of illegal aliens coming in droves. Nor do they seem worried about the dangers undocumented illegals pose to the country. If it did, wouldn’t they be with rallying with the protesters, instead of, in St. Paul’s words, partnering “righteousness with lawlessness?”

What gypsy-like mind reading skills is Evans using to peer into the souls of those conservatives to discover that it "doesn't bother them" that the American taxpayer is burdened with caring for the illegals? Or that they don't seem worried "about the dangers" of illegal aliens? That's a crock, as the record of those she is accusing amply shows. And is everyone who didn't attend a protest over the weekend now to have their commitment to the issue of illegal immigration questioned?

It's this sort of thing that makes Evans' piece unbalanced rather than an effort to make the case that these conservatives should not have visited the border.

What about this malarkey?

Loesch’s comparison of helping lawbreakers at the borders with helping veterans is akin to Sue Smith of a Virginia group LUCHA Ministries, saying “immigrants add a lot to our community” and these protests are “a sad picture of who we really are.”

No, Loesch's statement about helping illegals being similar to helping veterans is nowhere near "akin" to anything said by Sue Smith. Loesch helping illegals and veterans is an act, which can't be compared to what someone said. The disconnect between the two is jarring. There is no connection whatsoever -- two different things unrelated to one another. Loesch is comparing helping illegal kids with helping veterans. Smith is criticizing protests. Even pretzel logic is inadequate to the task of connecting the two.

A final, baseless smear:

So if these high-profile conservatives think they will keep raking in the votes and money while playing both sides they are delusional. Heart-tugging photo-ops, slick marketing, savvy, sexy book covers and courting the Tea Party rank-and-file may have worked up until now but anyone who lends his name or face to this government-sponsored invasion of illegals could soon be on the outs with those of us standing on bridges.

How is what Loesch et al did at the border "playing both sides"? If anything, their excursion highlighted -- placed in stark relief -- the utter incompetence and disarray of the government's response to this crisis. They were warned almost a year ago the situation was getting out of control and they did nothing. And now it's up to private efforts like Beck's to take care of these kids?

I suppose if you want these kids chained to a dungeon wall somewhere and fed bread and water, that would satisfy some of these political Christians -- charity is OK as long as it's directed at people who agree with us. All others -- Democrats, liberals, illegal aliens, or criminals need not apply.

Yes, the government is in a bind of its own making, but why should children suffer for it? As to their lawbreaking, yes let's deal with that. But that is a separate issue from their immediate, human needs. They're here. Punishing them for how they got here by assisting in making their lives miserable is, to my mind, crazy. By all reports, the conditions in these shelters are abysmal -- at least until a Congressman or reporter wants to visit and then they are spruced up and sanitized.

It's not a question of big government, "compassionate conservatism." That term refers to government spending, not private charitable activities. And conservatives are compassionate. The right gives more to charity and volunteers their time for charitable work more than liberals.

Following the example of the life of Jesus Christ means ministering to those who need it most, regardless of their station in life. Jesus did not only preach to Jerusalem suburbanites. He courted the company of the poor, the criminals, the sick, and especially, the children. It remains a mystery to me how this simple, Christian impulse followed by some prominent conservatives has been twisted to prove some dastardly and underhanded actions by a few conservatives who, even if they were grandstanding, were giving needed assistance to people in distress. And, since last I looked, humans have not been blessed with the insight to glean motives from anyone's actions, any questioning of intent is useless blathering.

You can try to impugn the motives of the conservatives who showed up voluntarily at the border with food and toys bought with private funds. But if you're going to do it, you better have more proof than that offered by M. Catharine Evans.